Imagine this. A killer is put on trial, and the jury, in a surprise verdict, finds him not guilty. Afterwards, reporters interview this killer. He says, “The jury freed me. It’s up to them. They decide. That’s what justice is all about.”

Then the press moves along to members of the jury, who say: Well, we had to take the defendant’s word. He said he was innocent, so that’s what we ruled.

That’s an exact description of the FDA and Monsanto partnership.

When you cut through the verbiage that surrounded the introduction of GMO food into America, you arrive at two key statements. One from Monsanto and one from the FDA, the agency responsible for overseeing, licensing, and certifying new food varieties as safe.

Quoted in the New York Times Magazine (October 25, 1998, “Playing God in the Garden”), Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications, famously stated: “Monsanto shouldn’t have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

From the Federal Register, Volume 57, No.104, “Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,” here is what the FDA had to say on this matter: “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

The direct and irreconcilable clash of these two statements is no accident. It’s not a sign of incompetence or sloppy work or a mistake or a miscommunication. It’s a clear signal that the fix was in.

No real science. No deep investigation. No convincing evidence of safety. Passing the buck back and forth was the chilling and arrogant strategy through which Pandora’s Box was pried opened and GMO food was let into the US food supply.

In order for this titanic scam to work, the media had to cooperate. Reporters had to be a) idiots and b) sell-outs.

Reporters and their editors let the story die. No sane principled journalist would have cut bait, but who said mainstream reporters are sane or principled?

Underneath the Monsanto-FDA buck-passing act, there was a conscious deal to give a free pass to GMO crops. This had nothing to do with science or health or “feeding the world.” It was about profits. It was also about establishing a new monopoly on food.

Not only would big agribusiness dominate the planet’s food supply as never before, it would strengthen its stranglehold through patents on novel types of seeds which were engineered.

It’s very much like saying, “A cob of corn is not a plant, it’s a machine, and we own the rights to every one of those yellow machines.”

How was Monsanto able to gather so much clout?

There was one reason and one reason only. Putting the world’s food supply into fewer hands was, and is, a major item on the Globalist agenda. If it weren’t, the FDA-Monsanto approval scam would have been exposed in a matter of weeks.

Major newspapers and television networks would have attacked the obvious con job like packs of wild dogs and torn it to pieces.

But once the scam had been given a free pass, the primary corporate-government tactic was to accomplish a fait accompli, a series of events that was irreversible.

In this case, it was about gene drift. From the beginning, it was well known that GMO plants release genes that blow in the wind and spread from plant to plant, crop to crop, and field to field. There is no stopping it.

Along with convincing enough farmers to lock themselves into GMO-seed contracts, Monsanto bought up food-seed companies in order to engineer the seeds…and the gene-drift factor was the ace in the hole.

Back in the 1990s, the prince of darkness, Michael Taylor, who had moved through the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto several times, and is now the czar of food safety at the FDA—Taylor said, with great conviction, that the GMO revolution was unstoppable; within a decade or two, an overwhelming percentage of food grown on planet Earth would be GMO.

Taylor and others knew. They knew about gene drift, and they also knew that ownership of the world’s food, by a few companies, was a prime focus for Globalist kings.

Control food and water, and you hold the world in your hand.

Here is evidence that, even in earlier days, Monsanto knew about and pushed for the Globalist agenda. Quoted by J. Flint, in his 1998 “Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism,” Robert Fraley, head of Monsanto’s agri-division, stated: “What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of [Monsanto-purchased] seed companies. It’s really a consolidation of the entire food chain.”

And as for the power of the propaganda in that time period, I can think of no better statement than the one made on January 25th, 2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Glickman said:

“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech [GMO] side was the attitude that the technology was good and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department [USDA]. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of these issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”

Glickman reveals several things in these remarks: he was spineless; people at the Dept. of Agriculture were madly buying into the Monsanto cover story about feeding the world; and there had to be a significant degree of infiltration at his Agency.

The last point is key. This wasn’t left to chance. You don’t get a vocal majority of Dept. of Agriculture personnel spouting Monsanto propaganda merely because the fairy tale about feeding the world sounds so good. No, there are people working on the inside to promote the “social cause” and make pariahs out of dissenters.

You need special background and training to pull that off. It isn’t an automatic walk in the park. This is professional psyop and intelligence work.

It isn’t rinky-dink stuff. To tune up bureaucrats and scientists, you have to have a background in manipulation. You have to know what you’re doing. You have to be able to build and sustain support, without giving your game away.

Psyop specialists are hired to help make overarching and planet-wide agendas come true, as populations are brought under sophisticated and pathological elites who care, for example, about feeding the world as much as a collector cares about paralyzing and pinning butterflies on a panel in a glass case.

Here is David Rockefeller, writing in his 2003 Memoirs:

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

The Globalists play for keeps.

Owning the food of the world is part of their strike-force action plan, and Monsanto is a technocratic arm of that plan.

thematrix12

Meanwhile, the controlled press treats the whole sordid Monsanto/FDA story with its time-honored policy of “he said-he said.” This policy dictates that stories merely present both sides of a conflict without drawing conclusions.

Monsanto’s lies and crimes and cover-ups are everywhere. You could wear sunglasses and find them in the dark.

The NY Times and the Washington Post could sell millions more papers on the back of Monsanto stories. It would be a bonanza for them. But no. They don’t care. They’d rather keep declining and losing readers. They’d rather die.

Normally, a business doesn’t commit suicide, especially when it sees exactly how to resuscitate itself. But here we are dealing with an agenda which can’t be disturbed. Globalism, and its agri-techno partner, Monsanto, are creating a planetary future. Major media are part and parcel of that op. They are selling it.

Again, we aren’t talking about sloppy reporting or accidental omissions of fact or boggling incompetence or ignorance about science. We are talking about conscious intent to deceive.

Yes, now and then the controlled media will release a troubling piece about Monsanto. But placement and frequency are everything. How often do these stories run? Do they run as the lead or do we find them on page 3? Are reporters assigned to keep pounding on a basic story and reveal more and more crimes? Does the basic story gather steam over the course of weeks and months?

These are the decisions that make or break a story. In the case of Monsanto and the FDA, the decisions were made a long time ago.

Part of every reporter’s training in how the real world works, if he has any ideals at all, is marching into his editor’s office with his hair on fire demanding to be given an assignment to expose a crime. The editor, knowing the true agenda of his newspaper or television network, tells the reporter:

“We’ve already covered that.”

“It’s old news.”

“People aren’t interested in it.”

“It’s too complicated.”

“The evidence you’re showing me is thin.”

“You’ll never get to the bottom of it.”

“The people involved won’t talk to you.”

And if none of those lies work, the editor might say, “If you keep pushing this, it would be bad for your career. You’ll lose access to other stories. You’ll be thought of as weird…”

This is how the game works at ground level. But make no mistake about it, the hidden agenda is about protecting an elite’s op from exposure.

If NBC, for example, gave its golden boy, Brian Williams, the green light, he would become an expert on Monsanto in three days. He’d become a tiger. He’d affect a whole set of morally outraged poses and send Monsanto down into Hell.

Don’t misunderstand. Brian hasn’t been waiting to move in for the kill. But wind him up and point to a target and he’ll go there.

However, no one at NBC in the executive offices will point him at Monsanto or the FDA.

All the major reporters at news outlets and all the elite television anchors are really psyop specialists. It’s just that most of them don’t know it.

One outraged major reporter who woke up and got out of the business put it to me this way: “When I was in the game, I looked at the news as a big public restroom. My one guiding principle was: don’t piss on your shoes. That meant covering a story that was considered out of bounds. If I talked to the boss about one of those stories, he’d look me up and down and say, ‘Hey, you pissed on your shoes. Get out of here.’”

Jon Rappoport

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More information and links pertaining to this article below:

“Playing God in the Garden”

“Statement of [FDA] Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties,”

“Agricultural Giants Moving Towards Genetic Monopolism,”

the one made on January 25th, 2001, by the outgoing US Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman

Meet Tyrone Hayes, a scientist with the University of California. He made an incredible discovery – that a commonly used herbicide can have profoundly harmful effects on the human endocrine system. He tried to publish his work, but the chemical’s manufacturer started a smear campaign to discredit him and his research.

At 74, and coming the end of his scientific and broadcasting career, David Suzuki mused on the notion: "If I had one last lecture to give, what would I say?" The result is a very special talk full of humour, warmth, insight and passion.

Plan to Walk across America to Include Dialogue on Genetically Modified Organisms

On January 5, Santa Barbara resident Taylor Lancaster, 31, will go on a walk — a very long one. Beginning at Santa Monica beach, the Los Angeles–born Lancaster, who currently works at Yoga Soup as a desk yogi, intends to continue walking eastward, through the major cities of the desert, upward through the plains, and finally ending in Manhattan, in a transcontinental walk intended to cultivate discussions on genetically modified organisms (GMO).

At 74, and coming the end of his scientific and broadcasting career, David Suzuki mused on the notion: "If I had one last lecture to give, what would I say?" The result is a very special talk full of humour, warmth, insight and passion.

At a packed house at the Perth Convention Centre, Suzuki voiced his long-time frustration at the obsession for economic growth at the sacrifice of nature, while urging us all to strive for a sustainable future.

The event was hosted by the Perth International Arts Festival and UWA Extension. He is introduced by Josh Byrne, who is a host on ABC Television's "Gardening Australia".

David Suzuki was born in Vancouver, Canada in 1936. He has had a long and prolific career as a scientist, environmentalist, broadcaster and author. His scientific field is genetics, but he is best known for his television and radio programs that examine and explain the natural sciences, including "The Secret of Life" and "A Planet for the Taking."

He is the co-founder and chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, which was established in 1989 to advocate and educate people about environmental conservation, sustainable ecology and climate change.

Suzuki has won many awards for his work including the 2009 Honorary "Right Livelihood Award." He has written over 48 books, his latest being "The Legacy: An Elder's Vision for Our Sustainable Future", on which the lecture he is delivering is based.

A huge increase in the incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases has been reported in the UnitedStates (US) over the last 20 years. Similar increases have been seen globally. The herbicideglyphosate was introduced in 1974 and its use is accelerating with the advent of herbicide-tolerantgenetically engineered (GE) crops. Evidence is mounting that glyphosate interferes with manymetabolic processes in plants and animals and glyphosate residues have been detected in both.Glyphosate disrupts the endocrine system and the balance of gut bacteria, it damages DNA and is adriver of mutations that lead to cancer.

He had been an enthusiastic supporter of genetic engineering, working on cutting edge safety research with genetically modified (GM) foods. But to his surprise, his experiments showed that GM foods were inherently dangerous. When he relayed his concerns during a short television interview in the UK, things got ugly. With support from the highest levels of government, biotech defenders quickly mobilized a coordinated attack campaign trying to distort and cover up the evidence."

A panel of experts, the Royal Society and food-safety scientists in regulatory agencies around the world, all have concluded that the study does not demonstrate that the GM potatoes were unsafe in any way

Further evidence of genotoxic and cytotoxic effects – a prelude to cancer, birth defects and reproductive problems Dr Eva Sirinathsinghji

A fully referenced version of this articles is posted on ISIS members website and is otherwise available for download here

Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website

New research finds that glyphosate causes cell and DNA damage to epithelial cells derived from the inside of the mouth and throat [1]. It raises concerns over the safety of inhaling glyphosate, one of the most common ways in which people are exposed to the herbicidehttp://www.i-sis.org.uk/Glyphosate_Toxic_to_Mouth_Cells.php

The Influence of Glyphosate on the Microbiota and Production of Botulinum Neurotoxin During Ruminal Fermentation

Get Access

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to investigate the impact of glyphosate on the microbiota and on the botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) expression during in vitro ruminal fermentation. This study was conducted using two DAISYII-incubators with four ventilated incubation vessels filled with rumen fluid of a 4-year-old non-lactating Holstein–Friesian cow. Two hundred milliliter rumen fluid and 800 ml buffer solution were used with six filter bags containing 500 mg concentrated feed or crude fiber-enriched diet. Final concentrations of 0, 1, 10, and 100 µg/ml of glyphosate in the diluted rumen fluids were added and incubated under CO2-aerated conditions for 48 h. The protozoal population was analyzed microscopically and the ruminal flora was characterized using the fluorescence in situ hybridization technique. Clostridium botulinum and BoNT were quantified using most probable number and ELISA, respectively. Results showed that glyphosate had an inhibitory effect on select groups of the ruminal microbiota, but increased the population of pathogenic species. The BoNT was produced during incubation when inoculum was treated with high doses of glyphosate. In conclusion, glyphosate causes dysbiosis which favors the production of BoNT in the rumen. The global regulations restrictions for the use of glyphosate should be re-evaluated.